set_device_bid_modifiers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses the allowed range, the exclusion semantics, Smart Bidding's limited honoring of values, the 'None keeps unchanged' behavior, and the dry-run default unless confirm=true. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs before invoking the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core operation. Every sentence adds distinct value: range semantics, exclusion behavior, Smart Bidding nuance, None handling, and confirmation/dry-run behavior. There is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: what can be set, valid values, how to leave fields unchanged, and how to actually execute instead of dry-run. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. No critical gap remains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of device values (percent range, -100 exclusion), the None behavior, and the confirm flag's dry-run semantics. customer_id and campaign_id are not explicitly explained, but their names and required status make their roles self-evident.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set campaign-level device bid adjustments in percent (-100 to +900).' It also clarifies the exclusions semantics and distinguishes device adjustments from the sibling location-based tool through the word 'device.' The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate: adjusting device bids, using -100 for exclusions, and understanding behavior under Smart Bidding. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X,' but the context is clear enough for correct tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.